Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin. Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign. The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics. These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base. I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees. As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars. Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill. Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity. As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands. Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time. Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored. Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock. Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition. Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities. That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate. When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality. The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races. Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent. The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse.

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home. As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not. Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time. Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate. Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday. This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post. The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility. They will also read what their idols write in magazines. They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on. The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign.

Let’s start with Exhibit A. I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter. This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex. Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape. No argument from me here. It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point. Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case. I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden. Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed.

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic. I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist. Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much.

Back to Twitter woman, though. This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her. At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything. She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth. She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way. Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point. The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech. I don’t deny the validity of this claim. People are free to say and write nearly anything they want. My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society. They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you. Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine. He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band. The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy.

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny. It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind them. For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them. They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative. I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening.

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message. He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”. As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage.

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.”

Witty? Not so much. Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously. It’s lost here, though. Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in. His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it. If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR. The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier. When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors. The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely. Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that. He just sounds stupid and petulant.

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped. His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities. Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. The list goes on. There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees. Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact. I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote. He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

Incivility abounds. And, as I said, it trickles down. I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality. So far, so good. Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States. Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history. Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did. I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism. It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage.

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people. Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change. I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough. You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back. Fine. You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok. You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary. These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either. I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions. Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.

Rarely do Republicans agree with Democrats on anything–not even the American Jobs Act–so bipartisanship on any issue is (unfortunately) a big deal. That bipartisanship came not in the form of legislation, but in calling for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release an extensive record of his tax returns.

While Romney has released a year and a half worth of returns, and has done the bare minimum required (as is the Romney way), the public is still not satisfied. As Jon Stewart so aptly put, Romney only released returns from “when he was running for president” in the 2012 election (meaning that he was aware that he was under special scrutiny and may have sanitized certain things for public consumption). Every day Romney refuses to release more tax returns, the political fallout increases. On yesterday’s “Good Morning America”, Ann Romney said, “We’ve given you people all you need to know”, sparking outrage over her use of “you people”, basically because she condescendingly accused her fellow Americans of being peons far below the aristocratic–and exceptional–Romneys. This “special treatment” ethic that the Romneys seem to believe they deserve is the biggest problem with the whole taxgate issue.

Unlike pundits who speculate that Romney must be hiding something terrible, I seriously doubt there is anything illegal in Mitt Romney’s tax records. The problem is that the system allows for the kind of “institutional advantages” that make possible vast economic inequality in America. Romney just reaps the benefits.

Mitt Romney has a myriad of personality flaws. There are reasons he seems out of touch and like he’s keeping others at arm’s length. He’s not forthcoming. He’s always vague. He’s not transparent. He lacks ideological convictions. In short, he’s not trustworthy. And he has money in overseas accounts. It’s not a good combination.

The unscripted Ann Romney moment served as a lightning rod because it so clearly epitomizes people’s fears about the Romneys and their relation to the majority of the country. Can you see Michelle Obama saying “you people”? The opposition would be on her SO FAST. For that matter, can you imagine Barack Obama not releasing his tax returns? (And he doesn’t even have his father’s vaunted example to live up to.) Certain Republicans, advanced by their trustworthy mouthpiece Fox News, have called for the president’s sealed documents, including high school and college transcripts. They do this to create a distraction, as if there is some false equivalency. There’s not.

Mitt and Ann, you’re not special. It’s beyond insulting that you think you are. Running for president is the great equalizer, and no one is spared the scrutiny–especially not those whose extreme wealth and secrecy have been used to insulate and separate themselves all their lives from the citizenry they are running to serve.

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA for short). In the ruling of a lifetime (really, how often do non-constitutional scholars get this excited about anything involving the Supreme Court?), the Court upheld the entire law as constitutional, aka, legal. The details were very exciting, but I won’t get into them here. That’s not what this post is about.

This post is about the fact that certain segments of society have taken up the most selfish, bigoted, irresponsible, opportunistic, and ignorant views on this subject that it makes me embarrassed to call them fellow citizens. It is one thing to disagree with the nuances of the law. I certainly don’t think the law is perfect as is. I would even understand if people openly stated that they don’t care about other people and don’t want to pay for them. At least they’re being honest. It’s quite another to brandish your argument in fancy words and pretend you’re all about cost control, “freedom”, and “judicial restraint”. While I’m probably preaching to the choir, and it’s not like my blog post will reach Cantor and Co., I feel compelled to spell out two arguments for the necessity of health reform.

The moral argument: You’ve heard the statistics. 50 million people are uninsured in America. That’s nearly 1 in 6. Those who are insured may be underinsured, or may take a job or remain at a job because they need the healthcare provided by their employer. Pre-“Obamacare”: Lifetime caps on coverage were instituted, making it impossible for many people to pay their medical bills, medicines were more expensive, contraception cost more money, those with preexisting conditions such as breast cancer (yes, really) were routinely denied coverage altogether, and there were gaping holes in insurance coverage for young adults and rising costs for senior citizens. Nearly 50,000 people a year die because they don’t have health insurance. This is a staggering number and should be unacceptable to any human being. The United States, an industrialized country, and the wealthiest country in the world by far, has no excuse. Politicians love to brag about how the American medical system has the finest doctors and the best technology in the world. Yet, we charge people exorbitant amounts at the emergency room, and let tens of thousands die per year. It’s often said that reason is the better tack to take in an argument as opposed to emotion. In this case, there’s no way to leave emotion out of it. Sickness and suffering is an emotional thing—especially if much of this suffering can be alleviated, and care can be provided for all.

The economic argument: For those who don’t care about the morality of the matter—or who have compassion, but “don’t think we can afford” to overhaul the healthcare system right now—there is a very strong economic argument to be made. Currently, healthcare accounts for 18% of the country’s GDP. To put that number in perspective, the United States government spent approximately 1% of GDP on the space program at the height of the Cold War, and that was a lot of money. This 18% is not stagnant, either. When people say that healthcare costs are “spiraling out of control”, and need to be contained, they mean it. Healthcare will eat up more and more of the budget, and soon, we won’t be able to pay for anything else. This is not meant as a scare tactic, and it’s not wild speculation. It’s the truth. Insuring more people, providing preventative care, preempting emergency room visits (the only way some people get treated), neutralizing risk, and creating a climate of stability will bring the costs down significantly. Sure, it will take a few years, but inaction is worse. If the U.S. had taken significant action on climate change decades ago…but I digress. Doctors, hospitals, patients, and healthcare experts all agree that the fiscally responsible thing to do is to go the way of the ACA.

The free rider problem: This is about who we are, as Americans, as a society. Like it or not, we do live in a society, and this concept carries with it certain responsibilities. Given the choice, individuals will act in self interest, aka, not take care of someone else. People will also not pay for things they don’t want or don’t see a need for—or, especially, if they feel the “intrusive” government is “shoving it down their throats”. Unless that something is on an infomercial…maybe the government should’ve tried to selling healthcare reform on TV at 3 in the morning. The point is, people need to be mandated to buy insurance to neutralize risk and to control costs for everyone. There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance to ensure people participate and that the program is successful. Also, it’s not as if people never get sick or hurt or old. It’s really an investment. Many of the people who don’t want to buy health insurance are the people who end up needing it the most. Those who can’t afford it will be aided. We live in a society in which cooperation is key. No one lives in a vacuum and became successful or self sufficient by himself or herself. A real patriot would want to do what’s best for the people in his or her country. Any person who wants to live in a successful society—really just an outgrowth of the idea of favorable environment—should understand and internalize this fact. We need to work together in a society, and sorry, Ron Paul, libertarian tendencies of hoping the “members of a church” will help someone in their community who is sick is unrealistic, unpredictable, and unsustainable.

In the 2 years and 3 months since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, it seems all Republicans have been doing is mounting a relentless P.R. campaign against the “monstrosity” they call “Obamacare”. When the scare tactics of alleged “death panels” didn’t catch on much beyond Tea Party circles, Republicans aimed for greater legitimacy by claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Eventually 26 states advanced this charge, and the healthcare law made it before the Supreme Court. In reality, behind the scenes much debate was going on within the Republican Party. In the last few months, talking points started to shift from “gutting the whole thing” to “of course, we’d keep the most popular parts”. While “replace and replace” became the de facto sound bite for any politician with an “R” attached to his or her name, the issue of what to replace their dreaded Obamacare with became more real. The sobering reality, once the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the constitutionality of the law in March, was that the Republicans must provide a viable alternative to the “2,700 page” legislation they had worked so tirelessly to strike down.

Herein lies the issue. As many have observed, prominent Republicans seemed to want to keep many parts of the law that proved popular. Their main opposition (beyond some of the issues with women’s health coverage and other so-called “liberal” provisions) was to the individual mandate part of the law. They didn’t like the loss of freedom imposed by a mandate forcing people to pay for healthcare. Their claims about the mandate, like all of their other claims about the law, were, of course, greatly exaggerated and distorted. Hyperbolic or not, Republicans didn’t like the idea of a penalty and infringement on individuals’ all-important “liberty”.

Cue the free rider problem. Also, isn’t denying people healthcare coverage an infringement of their liberty? “Life” comes before “liberty” in the Declaration of Independence. Without life, the pursuit of liberty and happiness become nonexistent. Besides, a lot of people are stupid. That’s not very diplomatic, but it’s true. When they need it, people want government to step in and protect them from their mistakes or when they’re at their most vulnerable—then it’s ok, apparently. In addition, people’s “liberty” often adversely affects other people, and everyone would admit that security (in this case, harm minimization) is the government’s role.

You would think that Republicans would be satisfied with the law because it helps big business. Insurance companies, overall, end up the big winners. The ACA is nowhere near nationalized or universal healthcare. That “Romneycare” was the blueprint for “Obamacare” need not be mentioned except to draw attention to the humor and irony involved in the opposition presidential candidate’s contortions around such a personally damaging issue. Hypocrisy at its finest. In fact, Romney, too, notably changed his tune in his speech following the Supreme Court decision which upheld the ACA in its entirety. Romney wants to keep certain provisions in place such as keeping kids on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26, not denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and maintaining competition between plans. Some Republican politicians have gone even further to endorse the provision of stopping lifetime caps on care. How to pay for all of this, though, without the mandate? The lynchpin of the law, much like the “automatic trigger” of sequestration enacted after the debt ceiling debates, was put in place to hold people accountable. Otherwise, they will “kick the cab down the road” forever and people will not take responsibility, not individually, and certainly not for the wellbeing of society. The conservatives, who always stress sustainability, have spit in the face of a plan whose central tenet–the individual mandate–they, themselves, designed.

Do they want freedom or security (read: liberty or sustainability)? President Obama’s Democratically passed law provides some measure of both. It aims to address spiraling healthcare costs and provides much choice and increased coverage for millions of people. Almost everyone in the United States is impacted by this law. It is by no means perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, and if Republicans are still so up in arms about it–and not just because they’re sore losers, hate Obama, aren’t too fond of women, prefer the status quo, and will cling to power at all costs–then it’s a positive sign.

The last few days have been abuzz with stories related to homosexuality, or as Bill Maher would put it, “it’s been a big week in gay”. Since every pundit is putting his or her spin on the most recent news–and it is a pivotal moment–I’d like to offer my analysis. To sum things up: Vice President Biden said in a televised interview that he fully supported same sex marriage, the media went crazy because President Obama had not shared that stance publicly, 3 days (and way too much media dithering later), Obama echoed Biden’s stance. A lot of people were excited (and some people used the issue to bolster socially conservative bona fides), but as we all know, since even important stories have shelf lives in the nanoseconds, a Romney story eclipsed the Obama story. In high school, Romney apparently held down a boy with the help of his friends, and forcibly cut his hair. This would be a horrible thing to do no matter what the circumstances, but the story takes on another dimension: the boy had dyed his hair blond, was presumed to be gay, and came out later in life. Whether Mitt Romney engaged in a hate crime (according to legal definitions) against John Lauber or not, he did bully a fellow student and human being. Some of the media coverage and the response to this story has been almost as upsetting as the story itself. I’ll get to that.

Let’s begin with Joe Biden’s “gaffe”. Why is it a gaffe? Because he was honest and came out ahead of the president? Biden spoke his mind. He was not offensive. It’s not even like he threw a whole party or something. He answered an interview question honestly, didn’t dodge it like many other politicians would have (and will continue to do), and demonstrated the courage of his conviction.

If his statement “made Obama look bad”, the only person Obama or his staff can really blame is the president himself. Obama certainly could have come out fully and forcefully for same sex marriage sooner, especially if, as he claims, he had reached this conclusion before Biden’s public moment. Attaching the term “gaffe” to every phrase that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth doesn’t work. If Biden pushed Obama–even inadvertently–good. Obama has been conciliatory, overly compromising, and too passive on a number of issues: climate change, the debt negotiations, supporting 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases in an effort to appease Republicans, passing another round of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, health care reform, banking reform, anyone?

It’s been said that Obama staffers are upset because Obama had a huge rollout planned. K, well, you snooze, you lose. A bigger issue, though: way to play politics with people’s lives. Oh, the administration was waiting for an opportune moment? Well, waiting until an election year at all is probably not the most opportune moment–unless they’re blatantly pandering.

Oh, well. Obama has a very strong record on LGBT rights including not supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, strengthening rights for domestic partners and protections for the LGBT community, spearheading the effort and corralling the necessary votes to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and more. Obama declared his support for same sex marriage in an interview, and while lingering questions remain about political pressure and whether his language was “strong enough”, it was a monumental civil rights moment. The first sitting president in history used his bully pulpit to influence the country. All’s well that ends well, right? Not quite.

The story about Mitt Romney and John Lauber came to light around the same time. 5 witnesses testified to The Washington Post that they were deeply ashamed of the incident, regretted it, and directly fingered Romney as the ringleader. They claimed that Lauber screamed and cried as he was immobilized. In the words of one witness, he “was terrified” and “it was an assault”. Romney claims to not remember the incident and offered the same asshole not-apology apology that people offer when they are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions or when they think the accuser is just too sensitive, i.e., the one with the problem. He chuckled, claimed he played pranks and engaged in “youthful hijinks”, and that if he did offensive things, he’s sorry if people interpreted them that way. He also said this was 48 years ago, and let’s focus on the economy, pretty please, because as even Republican strategists have claimed, keeping the focus solely on the economy is the only way he has a shot at winning.

I received an email from moveon.org that aimed to capitalize on the Romney incident. The language used absolutely exploited John Lauber in order to raise money for Democrats. It shifted the focus from the bullying incident to making fun of Romney (because an eye for an eye is always the way to go), and it used the Lauber story as a draw. It glossed over why the situation was terrible, and instead pushed shameless partisan self-promotion. The email was entitled “Dark Incident”. This email was a dark incident. Way to be unprofessional. The email sensationalized events and then brought in irrelevant information. The organization does not need to do that. The story speaks for itself. Way to stay classy, Move On.

To say society is in flux would be trite. Society is always in flux. We should all take a page from Vice President Biden’s book and take personal responsibility, while diplomatically stating our personal opinions. Shooting each other down and out-nastying each other just turns people off. The last thing we need is more disillusionment with the only system we have to protect us and to promote our rights as citizens. It’s easier to sit in the dark of the allegorical cave, and throw stones at each other, playing it safe. In the immortal words of Maurice Freehill, “Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?” And if politicians choose to invoke William Winthrop’s iconic “City Upon a Hill”, (which they are prone to do), then they should strive to live up to this ideal. We all should.

With all of the recent “War on Women” rhetoric, I’d like to sound off on this subject. “Polls show Obama ahead with women by 19 points”. “Romney is trailing with female voters”. “Women have historically voted more for Democrats”. “The real way to appeal to female voters is…” Stop. Women are human beings. Depersonalizing the existence of more than half of the population is a sure way to alienate a group so seemingly important to politicians. You’d think their strategists would realize this.

I’m not part of a monolithic voting bloc, and I’m not an interest group. President Obama made this very “not an interest group” point at his recent summit on American women and girls. Sure, he was pandering, but at least he actually has such a summit. This was not the first time the summit convened. It is not merely an election year tactic.

Yes, I’m voting for President Barack Obama. I’m sincerely hoping he gets reelected—not because I think of myself as a female voter, and women’s issues are at the top of the list for me. Quite the contrary. I wouldn’t have even been thinking about so called “women’s issues” very much had it not been for the recent onslaught against women’s rights. I’m talking beyond issues of birth control, which, itself, is an unbelievably backward thing to even be bringing up this campaign cycle. I’m talking about things such as fair pay for women, protection of health benefits, a sense of self worth and privacy, dignity, and pride in oneself.

President Obama is taking advantage of the current political climate in which a great deal of Republicans have been toxic to women. I’m aware that he hopes to score political points, but I’m not terribly cynical as I accept the fact that such political point scoring on his part might be necessary in order to get reelected. If he’s talking about actual accomplishments—concrete steps toward advancing and protecting the rights of women—I’m ok with the president reminding the public, and garnering the recognition.

The president has lauded the fact that the first bill he signed into law after being elected was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When I heard about this initially, at the beginning of Obama’s first term, I was extremely surprised that such an act was not already in place. The president’s signing of this bill, the contents of which protect a woman seeking retribution for unfair pay even after her employer has paid her less than her male colleagues for years, is a big deal. Contrast this with the recent undoing of Wisconsin’s fair pay law by Governor Walk All Over Workers (Governor Walker). Walker has a history of abusing his power and fervently attacking workers and unions in the short time he has been governor. Now that he is set to be recalled, he has kicked into overdrive, much like the especially active 111th Congress in late 2010 during the “lame duck” session. The “quiet” action he took on women’s pay is one of several bills the governor has recently passed in such a fashion. The New York Daily News elaborates:“The wage bill was one of several items Walker, a controversial union-defying GOPer, signed off on this month. Other pieces of legislation included barring abortion coverage through health insurance exchanges, mandating doctors to consult privately with women seeking abortions, and requiring sex ed teachers to stress abstinence.”

Add to this the recent comments by Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman, claiming that women don’t need to be paid equally to men and that more money was more important to a man because his ego is very important and he might want to be the breadwinner. In a recent article, The newspaper explains, “Under the old law, employees who win discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The GOP bill bars anyone from collecting such funds in employment discrimination suits.

Democrats argue the bill negatively affects women who suffer discrimination in the workplace.

According to the recent Shriver Report, women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American families — but continue to make 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned.”

Grothman thinks “workplace bias” is bullshit. Not only is this terribly ignorant and out of step with modernity; it is unbelievably offensive.

Speaking of the shockingly offensive, the Violence Against Women Act is up for a reauthorization vote in Congress. This should be a no-brainer. It should not be a partisan vote, and it hasn’t been a partisan vote in the past. It is worth noting that Vice President Biden is responsible for the original Violence Against Women Act. This particular piece of legislation is facing significant opposition for the first time. Whether this is some subtle way of trying to score points against the president’s reelection bid (because it is Biden’s legislation) at the expense of women or for some other nefarious reason, it is a disgusting display of disregard for their fellow human beings. The Violence Against Women Act protects women in particularly vulnerable positions, and for a party that claims to be so chivalrous and value “the fairer sex”, you’d think Republicans would do all that’s in their power to reauthorize such a bill.

According to an article in The Huffington Post, “Since the Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent. The legislation was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.”

Terrible, right? Strengthening protections for women through a reauthorization of this bill should be a bipartisan effort, right? Wrong. The article goes on to say “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, object not to the act as a whole, but to new protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.”

I could go on and on about Mitt Romney’s record on saying that poor women must have the “dignity of work”—meaning work outside the home—if they are to qualify for state aid, which is understandable, but less understandable when he and every other Republican, it seems, have advocated cutting childcare and education programs like Head Start. Most women do not have the luxury of raising children without working outside the home (unlike his wife, who has the “hardest job there is”, apparently), especially single mothers, and for the poorest women, outside work is increasingly difficult if they do not receive adequate government aid. The much-celebrated Paul Ryan budget plan deals a disproportionately heavy blow to women as well.

From frighteningly restrictive abortion laws (such as the recent law that says that life begins two weeks after a woman’s period), women’s basic rights to their own bodies and their ability to make decisions are being trampled in the name of some warped, overbearing ideology. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is not aimed specifically toward women, but in many ways it advances women’s rights. Nothing in this bill, not even the apparently terrifying contraception language, is as overarching as many recently proposed (and passed) bills limiting women’s rights.

While I do not want to be defined by my gender, I feel a duty to inform those who share it a bit about what is happening in America. Every individual is free to vote for whomever she or he wants to, but I don’t understand how any woman who isn’t Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly could ever—in good conscience—vote for a Republican this cycle. If someone finds me a Republican who bucks this trend, I would be very happy.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that grants equal rights under the law to U.S. citizens, regardless of gender. On March 22, 1972, after a very long battle beginning when the bill was first written in1923, the ERA passed the Senate (after a protracted battle in which it passed the House twice). It was not ratified by enough states to become an amendment. This bill didn’t pass at the height of the women’s rights movement in the United States. We have been dealing with the repercussions ever since. Sexism might have very well still been abundant, but perhaps we’d be closer to true equality if such an amendment were passed. It is one thing to say you believe in equal rights for women, but the reality illustrates an alternate picture. In recent weeks, women’s rights have entered the political foreground, and I’d like to take the opportunity to address the crucial issue of women’s rights in this blog post. As trite as it sounds, “women’s” rights are human rights.

On Wednesday night’s episode of “The Colbert Report”, Stephen Colbert had a hilarious and very timely bit concerning the recent strides in the development of male birth control pills. He declared that if men are to use such pills, then the morally right thing to do is to force them to endure an ultrasound probe into their urethras in order to see the face of every sperm—yes, you read that right. The importance of seeing the face of each sperm cannot be discounted because, according to his logic of reproductive morality, each sperm is a potential life. Taking birth control pills to render voluntary impotency is killing potential life. If the men could see the faces of the millions of sperm they are destroying—nee, the potential human life that is being destroyed—maybe they would think differently. “If they survive” having a huge probe rammed up their pee holes, that is, Stephen said.

As unbelievably ridiculous as this sounds, it could’ve been the reality for millions of Virginian women. If a woman wanted to get an abortion in Virginia, she would have had to undergo a 24-hour waiting period, be subjected to a line of emotional questioning, and submit to a transvaginal ultrasound. The normal ultrasound is a non-invasive one placed on top of the woman’s abdomen. This is not the ultrasound that would’ve been given. Transvaginal means a large probe is stuck up the woman’s vagina for no medical purpose whatsoever. Pursuant to the wording of Virginia’s laws, forcing an object into a woman’s vagina against her will for no necessary purpose is tantamount to rape. Think about this: If a woman were not in a doctor’s office, and someone forced an object up her vagina without her permission, this would be called rape by instrument. It is a crime. It is traumatizing, very possibly painful, and intended to shame a woman into not having an abortion—or at the very least, to preemptively punish her even if she does go through with the procedure. What if a woman is pregnant as the result of a rape? The violation of a probe after such an event is even more traumatic—unimaginably so. As if all this isn’t bad enough, pictures of the fetus were to be permanently placed in the woman’s file. The alleged compromise at the time was that the woman wouldn’t be forced to look at the photos if she didn’t want to—even though they were being shown on a screen right next to her face. How considerate. They are only placed in the file as a permanent reminder. Because the act of getting an abortion is so easy, right? It’s not already a terribly tumultuous time emotionally for the woman involved. Of course not.

While the most obviously offensive part of the bill was overturned, other tenets of the bill were not. After a tremendous outcry from millions of women as well as men, on the gross invasion of privacy and sheer violation such a practice would entail, Governor Bob McDonnell (known for his lifelong commitment to curtailing women’s reproductive rights) scaled back the bill. The bill is no longer up for a vote in the immediate future.

One of the recent precursors to this bill was McDonnell’s proposal that women be given “morality tests” to judge whether they could make the right decision about getting an abortion. Don’t many Republicans claim to belong to the party of small government? Don’t they hate mandates and government intrusion and claim it’s the big, bad Democrats who want to make your decisions for you? That “Obamacare” gets in between people and their doctors? (Fact check: it doesn’t.) There’s a very good reason that it’s been said that Republicans want small government—small enough to fit inside a woman’s uterus. It’s empirically true.

Similar bills are already on the books in several other states. That’s right—this proposed Virginia law was not an isolated case.

The other big story in the news recently was the opposition to sections of the Affordable Healthcare Act that stipulate that costs for methods of birth control and family planning, such as birth control pills, be partially covered by employers offering health insurance to their employees. The Catholic Church bucked at the provision that it should pay for birth control for female employees of Church institutions such as Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities—that this was a matter of conscience. In lockstep with several Church elders, many Republicans framed the “debate” as a demonic, overarching president infringing on the religious freedom of individuals—and institutions—opposed to such practices as they view as not only immoral, but unconscionable. I could get into all the hairy details about how this was almost entirely a calculated political move and had very little to do with “liberty”, but I would end up going off on a very long tangent. Even when the Obama administration promised a compromise wherein the insurance companies would pay for the costs, the fight continued.

A Congressional panel was formed to discuss religious freedom vs. “Obamacare”. No women were invited to speak on women’s health issues. A woman who had been invited by the Democratic minority to speak was shut out by Representative Darrell Issa. Forget partisan bullying and obstructionism. This was sexism, pure and simple.

The next step was a vote on the Blunt amendment. I would recommend watching Jon Stewart’s synopsis of this vote from his Thursday night show. If passed, this bill would have allowed employers to deny healthcare coverage to employees based on religious or moral convictions—whatever those might be. The bill failed—by only 3 votes.

Rhetoric such as the contention that back in his day, “women held an aspirin between their knees” and called it birth control (a statement declared by Rick Santorum’s largest donor Foster Friess) is despicable. His attempt at a cutesy folk reference literally means that when he was younger, women didn’t need actual birth control because they kept their legs closed. It cuts to the heart of true sexism. It is an entrenched way of thinking not unlike the racism of certain southern conservatives whose opinions of those of color hasn’t changed all that much since the time of slavery. It’s a wink and nod, old boys club, women shouldn’t want to be desired or else they’re sluts, sexism. It’s couched in religious rhetoric and it’s not necessarily confined to regionalism. Republicans have been at the forefront, but it’s not a partisan sexism. There are even women who subscribe to this same ethic of gender inequality.

This is a huge problem. I have dealt with the idea on a daily basis that if I wear clothing that shows off my body, then I’m “dressing slutty”, that if something were to happen to me (this something is always hinted at, but it means if I were to be attacked—raped or molested—by a man), then I’m asking for it. I can’t be too pretty by wearing a lot of makeup, whatever that means. I can’t be too sexy. I’m just too tempting. I’m asking to be raped. It’s my fault. The man can’t help it. He’s so horny that he just can’t control himself. This is what we tell girls and women in our society. The goal is to be desired because you need to have a man, but you better be careful because men aren’t to be trusted. This bipolar ideology governs women every day in the United States.

Another recent point of contention was in response to Rick Santorum’s view that he worries about women in frontline combat in the U.S. military. His claim was that he worried about the emotions involved. He clarified his statement by saying that it wasn’t the women he was worried about who would fall to pieces, but the men, who have been taught to protect women, to subscribe to a kind of chivalrous ethic in which they keep women out of harm’s way. While the overwhelming military view is that female service members in Afghanistan and Iraq have been just as capable and tough as men in combat, we should be looking at another issue entirely. If anyone is worried about women, they should look at the appalling rates of sexual abuse women suffer, both in the military and as military contractors. Those men are certainly not chivalrous or protective.

This brings me to my main underlying point. The prevailing view—whether subconscious or not—is that in many instances, the victim is seen as the aggressor or the instigator. We look down on cultures that force women to cover themselves up so as not to be sexually objectified, yet it is rarely explained why we do that. Clothing and not wearing a head covering is more than a matter of choice, of self expression (though these things are certainly important to developing a sense of identity and feeling less constrained). I’m not only referring to Muslim cultures. In addition to Muslims, Orthodox Jews and various Christian sects as well as members of the FLDS engage in such practices in the United States. Orthodoxy, fundamentalism, extremism (whatever you want to call it) often breeds sexism. Whether women are encouraged (or often forced) to wear head coverings, wigs, or wear their hair in non-sexual styles, the theme of not tempting men with long, lustrous hair is repeated. Men have a biological attraction to long hair on women. Healthy hair, in general, is a sign of fertility and men will have a response to this. It’s encoded in their DNA. A woman’s curves have a similar effect. This is natural! Women should not hide who they are! They shouldn’t be made to obscure themselves so that men won’t be tempted to have their way with them. Girls should not be made to iron their breasts or undergo female genital mutilation in African and Middle Eastern countries because men might desire them or rape them. How is this the reality we live in? How is this accepted? None of this should be allowed to continue. None of these sexist practices should be perpetuated. I know, I seem so intolerant. How dare I compare wearing a hijab or a long, shapeless skirt to a young girl’s clitoris being cut off and/or her vagina sewn up? One is minor; the other barbaric, right? I don’t care. I’m sick of being silent. I’m sick of being politically correct. The message beneath any practice that alters who a woman is so that she protects herself from the animal instincts of men is abhorrent. As a society, we should disavow such practices immediately. It is disgusting that women in Orthodox communities in Brooklyn are made to feel unclean when they have their periods because of an ignorance perpetuated by men who are so fearful of any upheaval of the status quo that they relegate women to the status of sub-human animals. They routinely treat women as filthy. Men want women to remain uneducated, to be servants, to be subservient to men. The U.S. law doesn’t intervene in such practices because it protects “religious freedom”. How about human rights? I am of the firm belief that individual dignity trumps religious freedom. Even when taking religion out of the equation, entrenched sexism constantly surfaces. A similar ethic of women as second class citizens or as weak or merely as things to be objectified is illustrated by the oft-repeated “bitch, make me a sandwich” line or the ubiquitous use of the word “pussy” in the male vernacular.

I’ve been called a cultural imperialist. I think I’ve proven that I believe Western and American culture has a long way to go and is far from perfect. I certainly don’t think I’m living in a utopia in which gender is not a source of prejudice and ill treatment. Human beings have the faculty of reason and the capacity to practice ethics. We have laws. Men can certainly control themselves and must do so. Women should not live in fear and should not have to take extra precautions against the animal instincts of men. If anything, it is the men who should be constrained, not the women. I believe that we live in a world in which everyone should be treated equally.

Women have to deal with all kinds of sexism. The last place women should have to worry about this is to have it written into the law.

A massacre of genocidal proportions is currently happening in Syria. The number of people dying daily is equivalent to the average number of deaths due to the war in Afghanistan every month. In the last few weeks, the number of people killed has surpassed 200 every day. The death toll has spiked recently, but the number of Syrians who have died since last March (when uprisings began) is estimated at well over 7,000. To put this in perspective, fewer than 5,000 members of the U.S. military died in Iraq during a nearly nine year war. Tens of thousands of Syrian civilians have been imprisoned. Torture is commonplace and countless videos of children being mutilated and murdered in the streets have appeared. Those injured are avoiding hospitals for fear of being tortured or killed by the oppressive, bloodthirsty regime. Doctors have suffered similar fates merely for treated the wounded. Makeshift clinics have appeared where courageous Syrians just try to treat those who have been indiscriminately shot by merciless snipers or whose houses have been blown apart by mortar fire.

A little background first: Syrian citizens began protesting peacefully for greater democratic rights and freedoms in January 2011 at the same time that protestors took to Tahrir Square in Egypt. In fact, the first public protest was held on January 26, a day after the January 25th protest movement began in Egypt. The protests strengthened and became sustained in March 2011 after major protests occurred in the city of Daraa. The protests quickly spread throughout the country. As part of the Arab Spring, the large-scale regional protest movement occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa, the Syrian movement grew. While dictator Bashar al Assad’s Ba’athist government offered minor concessions to the protestors (such as lifting emergency rule which had been in place for 48 years), no real reform was offered. (If the Ba’athist Party sounds familiar, it is because Saddam Hussein was a Ba’athist, albeit an Iraqi one.) Assad’s troops began killing protestors, blaming the protests on “armed gangs”, calling his fellow citizens thugs and terrorists. As the death toll mounted, international journalists were not allowed into Syria. Members of the Syrian military who refused to fire on protestors were executed. Still, some members defected, and the Free Syrian Army was formed to fight off the growing violence. Like the rebels in Libya, the Free Syrian Army has claimed that it has control over several cities and is aiming to overtake Damascus, the capital. As the country devolved into chaos, the military began to kill all manner of civilians, even those who weren’t even protesting.

News reports have claimed that the country is on the precipice of civil war. The city of Homs is a prime example of the sectarian violence that has erupted during this conflict. Assad and his inner circle (i.e., those that have the power in Syria) are part of a Muslim sect called the Alawites. The Alawites comprise a small minority (approximately 15%) of Syria’s entire population. The city of Homs, where much of the violence and murder has been concentrated, has large populations of Sunni Muslims who have historically been oppressed by the Alawites in Syria. The Sunni areas of the city have been decimated while other areas (predominantly Alawite Shiite populated areas) of the city have been left alone, presumably to curry favor with the non-Sunni population.

The previous paragraphs only begin to scratch the surface, and if you’re still with me, thank you. What I’d really like to address is the question of what the world is doing in response to what is happening in Syria. After the humanitarian intervention in Libya, and the West’s positive reaction to the Arab Spring, it is understandable that the people of Syria are hoping for help. The United States and other countries, along with entities such as the European Union, have leveled sanctions against the Syrian government and Syrian oil companies. The United States and several other countries have criticized the Syrian government’s response to the protests within its borders and President Obama eventually called for Bashar al Assad to step down as leader of Syria. None of these actions made much of a difference, and the next step was an “observation mission” by members of the Arab League inside of Syria. Despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that civilians were, indeed, being killed, the Arab League mission has failed to say anything significant. (It is important to note that this mission was compromised from the outset, however, as it was headed by one of the key people in power in Sudan during the Darfur genocide, who has been accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.) The most recent major step was a vote on a binding resolution—a watered down resolution, but a resolution, nonetheless—denouncing the violence in Syria and calling for an immediate ceasefire. With 15 states voting at the United Nations, China and Russia vetoed the resolution, to the horror and disappointment of desperate Syrians.

There hasn’t been much debate about the Syrian situation. The world has largely turned a blind eye to Syria. Susan Rice, the current United States ambassador to the U.N. (and negotiator on Syria), is the same person who notoriously worried about the political impact of calling the Rwandan genocide a “genocide” back in 1994 when Bill Clinton was president. I don’t have particularly high hopes for American steadfastness on Syrian action with her at the helm. There is very little political will to even discuss military action or even humanitarian intervention of any kind in Syria during an election year in the United States. It is said that President Obama will play up his accomplishment of ending the official war in Iraq and of winding down the war in Afghanistan in hopes of being reelected in November. Many Democrats are opposed to war on moral grounds and many Republicans have either taken up the Tea Party “too much spending!” mantle or the Ron Paul isolationist model. Yet, the U.S. handling of humanitarian intervention in Libya is praised…

With no ground troops, an effective no fly zone put in place, a quick engagement aided by a multilateral force, and a positive result for about a billion dollars, which the United States expects to be paid back, most view the Libyan mission as a success. There are, of course, those who opposed the Libyan intervention like Rocky Anderson (a politician I really want to like, save for his ideas that saving Libyans was the wrong thing to do) and, again, Ron Paul. On a similar note, Fareed Zakaria (another person I like very much most of the time), lauded the credentials of the Arab League on its handling of Libya, yet said nothing about its failure and cowardice in its handling of the situation in Syria. If so many people believed that intervening in Libya was the right thing to do, why not do it again in Syria? I know. I’ve heard the arguments. Syria has a more powerful, more cohesive army. We shouldn’t spend the money. We’re not sure who to arm and how. There is no significant base for the rebels like there was in Libya with Benghazi. Yes, it is a different situation. But the basic facts remain the same. Civilians are being murdered in numbers that are too large to be ignored. We have no excuse. We can see and hear what’s going on. Even if the media would rather cover the Republican primaries and caucuses at the expense of showing much other real news, the Syrian situation still exists.

One of the only prominent politicians to speak out on Syria is presidential candidate Newt Gingrich—and he is not talking about helping Syrians for the right reasons. He has called for arming the civilians so that they will kill Assad, who is an ally of Iran, and of course, we (meaning the United States) aren’t very happy with Iran. So, basically, in his roundabout, manipulative, narcissistic way, Gingrich has turned what should be the moral thing into a self-serving, American interests first, pandering ploy. Nice one, Newt. He proceeded to explain how “weapons aren’t hard to get in that part of the world” which strikes me as a pretty nasty, condescending thing to say. Oh, Newt, ever the jingoist. Ever the opportunist. Still, he is one of the only ones to even suggest aid in any form to suffering Syrians.

I noticed something very interesting. Twitter is almost silent on the subject of Syria. There are no trending topics on Syria or the Syrian Revolution. No #syrianuprising or catchy nicknames like “Jasmine Revolution” (which was the name given to the revolution in Tunisia which started in December 2010). I first paid real attention to Twitter during the Green Revolution in Iran in the summer of 2009. Twitter was abuzz with tweets about the Iranian protestors. About a year and a half later, the Arab Spring erupted. Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya dominated Twitter, and prominent bloggers and tweeters from the ground in these Arab countries reached a level of fame they never would have had it not been for the uprisings in their respective countries. Even the protests in smaller countries such as Bahrain had their impact on the Twittersphere. This is in direct contrast to the fact that more people have joined Twitter in the last year. Why so little on Syria? I searched, and found some tweets written in Arabic, but even these were not occurring in a constant stream. I saw almost no trace of support from the outside world. Even on the few English tweets out of Syria, very little support was offered back to these people. I interacted with someone in Syria, in the midst of all of the destruction, someone who has had to bury a brother, an uncle, and a neighbor in the last few weeks, who is desperate just to be heard. I told him that there are Americans that do care. I asked what we, as Americans, or what I, as an individual, could do. He said that I can raise awareness. He asked me to contact my representatives in Congress and let them know what is happening. He doesn’t want the Syrians to go unnoticed, to be ignored by the world. They are screaming out, and everyone is covering their ears.

This is my attempt at raising awareness. I will not stop with this single blog post, but it’s a small thing I can do. Hopefully, the more people know, the more they will try to impact the Syrian situation and help the people there. They are human beings just like us and deserve basic human rights. Just as we do, they deserve safety and protection and a chance at the pursuit of happiness. If you read this, please tell everyone you can what is going on. Please say something. Please try to prevent more people from dying. Let us not let this continue as a genocide in which we look back and see how little the world really did while a corrupt government did all it could to hang onto power. Bashar al Assad’s father killed 20,000 people in the city of Hama 30 years ago in a matter of days. There is no reason this couldn’t happen again. Don’t let it.

To say that Mitt Romney is getting a lot of flak for a comment he made yesterday concerning the “very poor” is an understatement. Liberals have seized on this statement as the latest in a series of ever-worsening gaffes, gleeful that Romney is doing all the work for them as he paints himself as the “out of touch multimillionaire” and an unelectable candidate against President Obama during a time when public opinion is against America’s Rich Uncle Pennybagses. (At least Mr. Pennybags made his money buying properties. There is no mention of laying off workers, and I’m sure even he would scoff at a 13.9% tax rate.) Even conservatives have jumped ship on this comment, embarrassed that their candidate of choice has fumbled so definitively. After being given multiple opportunities to clarify his statement, he didn’t backpedal. This is the new Mitt Romney, flip flopper characterizations be damned!

I’d like to say a bit in Mitt Romney’s defense. This may come off more as an offense against the media than a defense of Romney, but I do feel like he’s getting unfairly beaten up over this statement, as well as some others made regarding interpretations of his wealth. If we are to criticize the candidate on anything he said, it shouldn’t be the fact that he said “I don’t care about the very poor” (or “the very rich”, as he qualified) or the fact that he said “We will hear about the plight of the poor from the Democrat Party”. (The fact that the perfectly polished Romney said Democrat, not Democratic, is probably a sign that he was tired and stressed, and maybe we should realize that no candidate is actually perfect.)

To be sure, Romney’s statement was meant to emphasize his apparent commitment to the middle class in America. (This particular pandering might not actually be sincere, but for the sake of argument, let’s take Romney at his word.) This focus on the middle class is a popular stance for a presidential candidate to make, and is, in fact, the same one that President Obama has been making since 2007. While Obama’s policies—both in theory and in execution have done much more for America’s poor than any of the Republican candidates have ever pledged to do—Obama is still a mainly middle class-focused president. And why not? The middle class is how you win elections. It is politically expedient to aim your rhetoric toward those who believe in social mobility and who largely see themselves as having the desire and the ability to improve their station in life. One of the most enduring tenets of history is that revolutions are made by the middle class, not sustained by the peasantry or the lower classes. I’ve taken a lot of history classes; take that, Newt Gingrich! Basically, while the middle class is undeniably shrinking, it still consists of the majority of Americans and remains the largest voting bloc of the electorate. By all economic estimates, a thriving middle class is necessary to restore the country’s economy.

So there’s nothing wrong with speaking to the needs of the middle class. I think the issue at hand is that people are disturbed by Romney’s stated focus on the middle class seemingly at the exclusion—or to the detriment of—the “very poor”. He said that those who fall into this category have a social safety net, and if the safety net has holes in it, he will work to fix them. On its face, there is nothing wrong with this statement either. The real problem comes when one reads into this statement in context. Romney claimed that his statement was taken out of context. If you listen to all he says, and consider that the context, you are not really understanding the full scope. Republicans—Romney included—have made it their unequivocally stated goal to cut social programs for the poor and remove or tremendously weaken the social safety net, claiming that the United States government has bred an “entitlement society”. The kind of Ayn Rand, individualistic, I don’t give a shit about other people and I don’t live in a society where I’ve actually ever relied on anyone and I ignore the fact that there is undeniable historical evidence that cooperation equals prosperity, thinking is further qualified by the idea that “with the mounting debt, we can’t afford to spend this kind of money”. Translated into simple English without the spin, the Republican candidates are willing to kill poor people and doom them to suffering. Maybe that sounds like fear mongering, but it’s absolutely true.

Problem number one: Mitt Romney is disingenuous when he claims that he will fix the social safety net. Also, how about trying to help people out of poverty? Romney cares much more about his corporate donors and bigwig buddies than the poor. No one should be fooling themselves. But we knew all this before this statement, so the gasps and outrage are surprising. Suddenly everyone realizes?

Problem number two: Romney stated that 90-95% of American people are middle class. He had stated on a previous occasion that 80-90% of people are middle class. Neither of these figures is correct. This is why people get upset when Romney includes himself in these figures and when he jokes that he, too, is unemployed. Romney seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what middle class means. Taking this further, if he truly sees himself as middle class, then he has no idea how the vast majority of the country’s population lives. Those figures should have been the real focus of criticism, not the semi-tactless statements he made.

Problem number three: Liberals are hurt that Romney likened the poverty issue to a Democratic issue. While the “plight of the poor” should definitely not be a partisan issue, this is not the point. Hearing Cenk Uygur rail on about how he, as a Democrat, shouldn’t be marginalized and “this guy” (Romney) is ridiculous just makes him—and other media representatives like him—seem self absorbed and immature.

Who doesn’t love a talking point? The media has survived on them since at least last May, when the Republican candidates started taking the 2012 presidential race seriously. The problem with this is that the focus becomes things like Romney’s $10,000 bet moment, not actual analysis of any of the candidates’ policy proposals. I personally don’t think the $10,000 bet was that big of a deal. We know Romney’s rich. We know he wouldn’t actually bet. He’s said plenty of other incendiary things that actually have potential for application, things that would hurt the poor—and anyone who couldn’t afford a $10,000 bet—far more than that debate moment. I get it, though: All of these moments are heuristics used to judge a candidate’s “character”, and we should know who we’re voting for. How about we don’t hound Romney relentlessly for every slightly awkward statement he makes, and instead, hold him—as well as every other candidate—to account for their actual positions and demand concrete plans from our potential leaders? Then, feel free to tear them apart. At least that would be productive.